On 22.07.2013 04:21, Clifford Snow wrote:
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at
mailto:b...@volki.at wrote:
When a shop changes, it is true that the address is more permanent. Just
like the coordinates are more permanent. But we won't necessarily keep
Am 22.07.2013 06:53, schrieb Bryce Nesbitt:
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us
mailto:cliff...@snowandsnow.us wrote:
I'm in favor of keeping addresses on vacant lots. Vacant lots often
get rebuilt
It would be nice if we had an
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 3:26 PM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote:
The major problem I have:
The common tools do not take an address from a surrounding/parent
polygon and use to it to get display the address. Even nominatum does
not handle that right.
This argument recalls the
This argument recalls the discussions about the is_in tag... The POI
within a building polygon containing the address is just the next
refinement after the street way within the municipality polygon. All
common GIS software are able to do it.
I agree. But it is really unsatisfactory that even
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote:
Adresses are attributes of physical objects, e.g. a parcel, a house, or a
part of a house.
Parcels can be merged and deleted, houses can be replaced,
shops/restaurants/POI's may change at any time but the addresses
On 21/lug/2013, at 14:06, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
Parcels can be merged and deleted, houses can be replaced,
shops/restaurants/POI's may change at any time but the addresses
remain
this might depend on the region you look at. Houses that are replaced usually
keep the number in
On 21.07.2013 14:06, Pieren wrote:
Parcels can be merged and deleted, houses can be replaced,
shops/restaurants/POI's may change at any time but the addresses
remain. It is more permanent as a simple 'attribute' than all the
'features' you mention.
When a parcel is deleted, the address gets
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote:
When a shop changes, it is true that the address is more permanent. Just
like the coordinates are more permanent. But we won't necessarily keep them
in OSM if there's no shop anymore. As this is unusual, let's habe a look
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.uswrote:
I'm in favor of keeping addresses on vacant lots. Vacant lots often get
rebuilt
It would be nice if we had an option to retain the address node. JOSM is
easier, just delete the unwanted tags. I haven't figured
On 19 July 2013 18:42, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote:
Forking the discussion from Double and misfitting house numbers
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
Not for me. I think the address is a feature by ifself, not an
attribute of other features
On 19.07.2013 18:42, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
I want to know what do people think about addresses.
1. Are addresses features as Pieren suggests? Thus addresses should be
mapped separately or at least tagged singularly on the primary object that
represents the address.
2. Or are addresses
On 19.07.2013 19:43, Elliott Plack wrote:
For example: a vacant lot often has an address, but there doesn't need to be
a building there.
In this case, the address is an attribute of the parcel, the piece of land.
It's an attribute anyway.
Also some shopping centers have multiple addresses
On 19.07.2013 19:43, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
they are both. If you investigated the situation and you are sure that you
can provide a good estimate for a polygon describing an address I'd say
that's preferable and you don't have to add address duplicates to all
features inside this polygon,
Forking the discussion from Double and misfitting house numbers
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
Not for me. I think the address is a feature by ifself, not an
attribute of other features (like 'name').
I want to know what do people think about addresses.
1.
2013/7/19 Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com
1. Are addresses features as Pieren suggests? Thus addresses should be
mapped separately or at least tagged singularly on the primary object that
represents the address.
2. Or are addresses attributes (like names) of POIs, buildings, and the
I like the address as a feature approach because not all addressed 'things'
exist, and 'things' can have many addresses. That's how we deal with addresses
in my gov's GIS.
For example: a vacant lot often has an address, but there doesn't need to be a
building there.
Also some shopping
2013/7/19 Elliott Plack elliott.pl...@gmail.com
For example: a vacant lot often has an address, but there doesn't need to
be a building there.
Also some shopping centers have multiple addresses for the same building,
so we make address points for each entrance or centroid.
yes, this is
Sometimes a lot's address (for tax purposes) is different from the building
address (which may be driven by a desire to be on a more 'popular' street
name).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
18 matches
Mail list logo
